California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012
blackredyellow
Posts: 5,889
I think that this is a good energy conservation law. Not only does it makes sense in terms of energy, but it also saves people money in the long run.
I was also surprised to read that conventional light bulbs convert only 5% of the energy they receive into light...
California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012
By Bernie WoodallTue Jan 30, 9:05 PM ET
A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.
If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.
Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.
While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.
"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."
Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.
About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.
A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.
Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.
California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.
While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.
"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.
Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/sc_nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc;_ylt=AjGff.ZC7rBtD24.VgrsW7EDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
I was also surprised to read that conventional light bulbs convert only 5% of the energy they receive into light...
California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012
By Bernie WoodallTue Jan 30, 9:05 PM ET
A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.
If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.
Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.
While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.
"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."
Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.
About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.
A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.
Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.
California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.
While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.
"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.
Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/sc_nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc;_ylt=AjGff.ZC7rBtD24.VgrsW7EDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
the CLMO
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
if the area needs to save energy, is that too much of a sacrifice? that is a "freedom" id be willing to give up.
~Ron Burgundy
and I don't know what the beef is... I think it's great... conservation. Like recycling. Most of the counties in California institute recycling (supplying seperate receptacles for garbage destined for the landfills and dumps or for the recycling center for metal glass and paper).
Are people against it because they are against conservation... or they just don't like being told to conserve?
Hail, Hail!!!
Don't showers pose more of an energy threat than lightbulbs? What if there were legislation saying you could only take 1 per day and it couldn't be longer than 5 mins? I just think it's a slippery slope to start limiting people's energy use.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Or they don't like being forced.
I always wore a seatbelt because it was the smart thing to do. When they passed the mandatory seatbelt law in my state I was pissed. Not because it was the right or smart thing to wear a seatbelt, but because the government, through force, demanded that I wear one.
Same with helmet laws. I'm a rider. I wear a helmet. I do so not because the government forces me to.
Good call. Just like those mandated low volume toilets. Now people have to flush those fuckers 2 or 3 times to do the job an old fashion flush used to.
it could be if they do it in the wrong fashion. maybe they want to start small to see how people react. i have no clue. but, it shouldn't be demanded by gov't that people conserve. people should conserve b/c they care. a lot of people don't care about the energy crisis, so the cali gov't is stepping in,...
~Ron Burgundy
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
We have those at work. I definitely flush them at least 3 times.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
True. I don't understand that, either. But then again, I'm opposed to the Patriot Act as well.
Conversely, why do people who like the government telling them what to do when it comes to lightbulbs and smoking and trans fats have a problem with the government telling them the what to do when it comes to reproduction, marriage, or privacy?
I think the government should stay out of all of it.
the big difference is some people are only focusing on the fact it is gov't legislation while some look at the impact ...
someone wrote that they got pissed when the gov't passed a law on something they were doing anyways ... its like the purpose of the law is secondary to the fact they don't like gov't period ...
these aren't black and white issues ... they should be decided on a case by case basis ...
But in all of these cases, we are allowing the government to set precident and policy where they shouldn't be. So rather than implicitly granting acknowlegement of governments role and looking at these issues case by case, I'll continue to bark about the government being involved in the first place. For some of us it is more black and white than you think. I'm sure for those who relish the nanny state, the only think to decide is how active you want the nanny to be.
shouldn't be is subjective ... should there be open speed limits on the road? ... should we allow people to settle disputes with guns? ...
either way ... putting a ban on conventional lightbulbs is not like banning abortion to me ...
Yes.
If that's what they want, yes. Dueling should be completely legal.
Hehe...why not?
I don't really see a parrallel......a new sort of light bulbs hardly puts anyone to detriment.....much different then limiting the duration of a showe, which, I agree would be crazy!
Why not give some kind of incentives for using conservation minded appliances, light bulbs, water fixtures etc?
Bans are absolutely the wrong way to go.
I love the conservationist sentiment, I hate the governments response.
I just installed an ultra low flow shower head yesterday and I'll be doing the bulbs soon on my own, without any government mandate.
If they want to change new building codes fine. That's probably an excellent idea. Change the new codes by 2012 and demand all lightbulbs; fixtures and appliances in new homes or businesses must be to some standard of efficiency.
Don't ban them, strongly encourage the public, give incentives and inform them, then let the people drive the demand.
Banning things is Facist and counterproductive.
You guys take big craps!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That's a harsh statement.
I think banning things can be salutary in certain conditions.
Two examples :
Buildings used to be built with asbestos (not sure of the name, but a heat-resistant mineral) until we discovered it was a serious threat to the health of people near those buildings. Building with asbestos was then banned, reducing the risk of lung cancer by x%.
CFC's were banned if I recall, to the demise of the hole in the ozone layer.
In both of the cases I fail to see how banning was counterproductive.
If some products are believed to be a threat to public health, I think a ban is a right thing to consider. And some people actually believe global warming is a public health issue.
The example with the seatbelt, I would agree. Because it only holds the life of the person in the car in jeopardy. But on larger scale issues it the life of populations that have to be considered.
The average human person is not stupid, I think people actually know where to draw the line. Arguing that the next move will be the timing of the shower is like arguing a nice way to get rid of aids would be to hold sex without condoms illegal. It won't happen.
Wow, you really must be full of shit.
Ha! Even funnier!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
the best part is.......america makes ZERO of the new bulbs, so they're importing the new bulbs which will cost americans jobs.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
If you stopped eating White Castles at lunchtime then you wouldn't have this problem
mmm.......white castle.......beer.......
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
But, you were and are paying for the people who didn't wear seatbelts or helmets. The way it should be... your melon gets cracked because you dumped your bike and were foolish enough NOT wear a helmet... the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for your poor decision, right?
As for the light bulbs... its the results that matter. Like the smoking ban... everyone hated it. But, now we all realize how nice it is to go to a restaurant and a bar in the evening and not wake up the next day with your clothes wreeking of stale cigarettes. The energy we save may help us to cut the overall energy bill as well as pollution.
Hail, Hail!!!